Talk:Princeton University Chapel/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 00:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: found and fixed three.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The University built the Chapel to replace the Marquand Chapel, which stood between where the Chapel and McCosh Hall stand today until it burned to the ground in 1920 "chapel" should only be capitalized where it forms part on the name of a specific chapel.

   Likewise with "university"

   Done. Lagrange613 17:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

   the rest of the structure above grade was masonry, "above grade" needs explanation.

   Most of the interior is limestone, but the aisles and the central area of the choir is Aquia Creek sandstone. "are" not "is" on the second occurrence.

   Otherwise prose is good.

   Done. Lagrange613 01:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

   Though Hibben called replacing the Marquand Chapel "an immediate necessity,"[9] the insurance money from the Marquand Chapel was insufficient, and fundraising competed with an ongoing general capital campaign for the University. needs addressing, very clumsy phrasing.

   Done. Lagrange613 17:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

   The lead is rather thin an does not fully summarize the article, see WP:LEAD.

   I've expanded the lead; how is it now? If it needs further expansion, can you provide any tips? Lagrange613 01:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

   Well, we definitely don't need a one sentence paragraph, it should summarize sections such as current use, history. I think MLK is worthy of mention, more clues at WP:LEAD. The lead should act as an executive summary of the article.

   Divide et Impera and I have expanded the lead here and here. Lagrange613 17:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

   I made a copy edit separate works cited from references.[2]

   Thanks; this looks better. Lagrange613 01:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

   It would be good to convert the bulleted lists into prose.

   I think the prose would be awkward. Per WP:EMBED embedded lists of "children" are fine. Lagrange613 01:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

   OK, I won't fight about it but you will have problems if you take this to FAC

   If only the preceding paragraphs contained the "glass windows" or the "special events", there would be satisfaction of Children. Just a suggestion for FAC.Divide et Impera (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

   They do. Lagrange613 17:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources appear to be reliable. Those which I could examine supported the statements. No evidence of WP:OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough coverage and no trivia.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Appears to be stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, just a few issues to address. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

   I think we are there now, thanks for your work. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)